'MPs will rule if hunting is cruel'

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor

12:00AM BST 14 Jun 2000

LORD BURNS, chairman of the hunting inquiry, yesterday defended his decision to use the language of animal welfare scientists, rather than laymen, to conclude that hunting "seriously compromises the welfare of the fox".

He admitted that the five-member panel debated last week how to couch their conclusions after the "exhausting" process of writing, agreeing and publishing a 225-page report in a mere six months.

Journalists asked why he could not get to the point and use the word "cruel", if that was what he meant. That, insisted Lord Burns, was to make moral and ethical judgments which his committee had not been invited to make. After rejecting the option of saying nothing about animal welfare, the committee fell back on its remit, set by Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, which was to provide "facts and analysis but not judgment".

That will be the job of Parliament in the months ahead - though, to judge by Monday's debate after publication of the Burns report, most MPs have already made up their minds and the arithmetic of the Commons at least would suggest that hunting, in all its forms, has an uncertain future.

Lord Burns does not intend to vote, though he will speak in the Lords debate. So what does "seriously compromising animal welfare" mean?

Related Articles

"Let's start at the other extreme. A successful humane shooting is where the animal doesn't know anything other than it has been shot. The animal has been killed, but there are no adverse animal welfare consequences because one moment it is alive and the next dead. It did not know anything about it."

In hunting, he said, all you could say without getting into the head of the animal was that "there is some diminution of welfare". "The animal has injuries, wounds, adverse bodily reactions - what with chasing, with noise and whatever - that show they have been disturbed, they are coping less well. What we can't do is put any numbers on it."

With deer hunting, where Lord Burns said the option was shooting the animal first or chasing it then shooting it, the conclusion of his committee seems clear. "It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is possible to shoot deer with a rifle expertly." With sports such as coursing and hare hunting where pest control is not a defence, the writing also appears to be on the wall, judging from the animal welfare sections of his report.

Lord Burns insisted that, with foxes, MPs faced a more complicated intellectual challenge than simply voting for, or against, a ban. He said: "There could be a worsening of animal welfare if there was a ban on hunting. In some parts of the country, you could have a ban and animal welfare would be better. If you banned hunting with dogs in upland areas, it would be possible to have an outcome where welfare would be adversely affected if you did not use dogs."

The report unequivocally condones the use of dogs to drive or flush foxes, or to track wounded deer, not necessarily to give close pursuit and kill. His hierarchy of killing methods starts with lamping - night shooting with a rifle - which, he said, gives "as close to a humane kill as you can get". It is used a tremendous amount by gamekeepers, paradoxically for protecting reared game. But you need a vehicle to give elevation and provide the light, and the inquiry makes clear that lamping is unsuitable if there are people, or mountains or rocks around.

In terms of controlling foxes, that leaves shooting with a shotgun or snaring. Both, said Lord Burns, have worse animal welfare outcomes than hunting. He said: "When you are looking at welfare, you have to look at what people are likely to do rather than what they ought to do."

The reality is that all legal methods would be used, he said. Hunting people should not find that statement too reassuring in favour of the status quo because Lord Burns favours a blend of shooting and the use of dogs, such as that practised by the Welsh gun packs. He watched as dogs drove, rather than pursued, foxes to waiting guns. He said: "The damage [to the welfare of the fox] from that process was relatively small."

Whether hunting is banned or not, Lord Burns and his inquiry have created pressure for more controls on snaring as well as shooting. It looks pretty grim for hunting then? Lord Burns said there were other issues such as personal freedom, tradition, culture, tradition, whether the suffering was justifiable, and the possibility of illegal hunting, which Parliament had to evaluate. He said: "It is a complicated business and not one which lends itself to very simple answers which are right in all circumstances or in all places."

A Government which wanted to back away might decide to license hunts and to commission more research, he added. The Lords debate will be his last involvement in the matter. Lord Burns will be spending his future Saturdays watching football or playing golf.

Could one not have reached the same seemingly adverse conclusions about other field sports, such as shooting and fishing? "A good question. All sorts of activities involve a compromise of animal welfare." He admitted to having asked the same question in his bath.

Pro-hunting peers from all parties have held informal meetings since the report was published to discuss following the Government's commitment to allow a vote in the House of Commons on a foxhunting ban.

Last night, peers were confident that the Bill would not become law before the next election and said there was "a huge majority" against a ban. But private meetings involving pro-hunting Tory and Labour peers have reflected a willingness to compromise on elements of foxhunting, including the setting up of a regulatory body and bans in built-up areas.